UN Investigating Whether Or Not US Is Torturing Bradley Manning

from the good-for-them dept

We recently posted about the conditions under which the US was holding Bradley Manning, the private accused of leaking documents to Wikileaks, and noting that they seemed to reach the level of torture, based on some excellent reporting by Glenn Greenwald. This news was troubling just because we should not torture at all, and was made even worse by the fact that the guy hasn't even been convicted of any crime (though, as many commenters pointed out, even if he was convicted of a crime, torture is still not appropriate). Not surprisingly, the comments on that post expressed a variety of opinions, with two specific statements repeated against my post: the first is that solitary confinement is not torture, and the second is that Manning deserves whatever he gets.

The latter response should be sickening to anyone who is an American or believes in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It's about the most anti-American thought I can think of to say that someone deserves punishment even when they have not been found guilty of a crime. As for the first comment, as many people suggested, you should read Atul Gawande's fascinating and disturbing article on solitary confinement, and then see how you feel about solitary confinement. The number of people who claimed that people were just coddled and weak if they couldn't handle solitary appear to be quite ill-informed about the nature of solitary confinement, and I would imagine they would not last long under such conditions themselves.

Since then, a lot more information has come out, including some explicit details about the serious negative effects the treatment has had on Manning's health and mental well-being. On top of that, while the Defense Department has tried to minimize the complaints by presenting their side of the story, the article above references Manning's specific comments to one of the only two people he is allowed to meet with, which indicates that the Defense Department was not being entirely truthful. The scary part is that it really appears that the treatment is having a significant impact on his health already. Even if you believe that what Manning did was the worst thing a person could do, can we at least let him be tried before issuing punitive measures?

Glenn Greenwald has another detailed report, which highlights how the US State Department has condemned solitary confinement in other countries:

As is true for so much of what it does, the U.S. Government routinely condemns similar acts -- the use of prolonged solitary confinement in its most extreme forms and lengthy pretrial detention -- when used by other countries. See, for instance, the 2009 State Department Human Rights Report on Indonesia ("Officials held unruly detainees in solitary confinement for up to six days on a rice-and-water diet"); Iran ("Common methods of torture and abuse in prisons included prolonged solitary confinement with extreme sensory deprivation . . .Prison conditions were poor. Many prisoners were held in solitary confinement . . . Authorities routinely held political prisoners in solitary confinement for extended periods . . . All four [arrested bloggers] claimed authorities physically and psychologically abused them in detention, including subjecting them to prolonged periods of solitary confinement in a secret detention center without access to legal counsel or family"); Israel ("Israeli human rights organizations reported that Israeli interrogators . . . kept prisoners in harsh conditions, including solitary confinement for long periods"); Iraq ("Individuals claimed to have been subjected to psychological and physical abuse, including . . . solitary confinement in Ashraf to discourage defections"); Yemen ("Sleep deprivation and solitary confinement were other forms of abuse reported in PSO prisons"); Central African Republic ("As of December, there were 308 inmates in Ngaragba Prison, most of whom are pretrial detainees. Several detainees had been held for seven months without appearing before a judge"); Burundi ("Human rights problems also included . . . prolonged pretrial detention").

Once again, it appears that the US State Department believes in different rules for itself than what it pushes on everyone else. Once again, I find that I am disappointed by my government not coming even close to the standards it purports to hold, and which it regularly argues other countries should follow as well.

Re: Re:

Back in the Geneva convention thread, there is a discussion of how military prisoners of the same class and same situation should be billeted together. He is with all of the other people who have be nicked for distributing large numbers of state secrets / confidential documents.

He is the only one. He is in solitary as a result. Boo-f-ing -hoo.

Solitary confinement (being held alone, held in a cell for 23 hours per day) is often used in the US prison system for prisoners who are violent, present a threat, or who should not be mixed with other members of the prison population. It has been tested in courts of law many times in the US, and this sort of detention comes out legal every time.

In fact, some Prisoners in the US system of British background have been trying to get it overturned in the European courts, because the US courts see no issue with the system:

As for your correction, my version was corrent. He is being held with all the other soldiers who distributed 250,000 secret and classified documents. I don't indicate that he is convicted, only that he is being held. The other soldiers he might get held with may or may not have been convicted. You are in such a rush to declare him innocent that you stopped actually reading. Congrats.

Re: Re: Re:

Wow, contradict yourself much?

"Manning isn't in solitary confinement."

"He is the only one. He is in solitary as a result."

How can he be in solitary and not solitary at the same time? I'm talking about actual effective solitary, not whatever technical terminology you're trying to use to weasel yourself out of your own statements.

"Boo-f-ing -hoo."

Yeah, locked up in a cell and potentially tortured with nothing but an accusation.

Weren't you people at war with the Russians for decades because you had the higher moral ground above the KGB and secret police? What happened?

"You are in such a rush to declare him innocent that you stopped actually reading."

Any other unsubstantiated assumptions you want to add here? I'm not declaring him innocent, except in the whole "innocent before proven guilty" thing. You know one of the supposed primary cornerstones of your justice system? Funny how that's sometimes easy to forget in cases where you find the politics difficult (see: fair trials of prisoners held in Guantanamo, or rather, not).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Paul you are falling for the BS being pushed out. You don't even notice it.

ocked up in a cell and potentially tortured with nothing but an accusation.

See? He isn't being tortured. There are no claims of torture, except to say that solitary confinement is itself a torture, which is an argument that the courts in the US have rejected over and over again.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that he cannot be locked up without parole until his trial. Some prisoners in the US may spend up to 5 years incarcerated as their case wanders through the court system, appeals, and the like. Manning has been inside for less than 7 months. Again, boo f-ing hoo.

How can he be in solitary and not solitary at the same time?

If you have only one prisoner, is he in solitary confinement or are there just no other prisoners in his range? My comment is aimed at those who attempt to invoke the Geneva convention on prisoners of war (he isn't a prisoner of war, but let's play along). The convention states that all prisoners on the same level should be billets together where possible. I am saying he is billeted with all the others accused of spreading 250,000 official secrets and confidential documents. He is the only one.

The net result is he is in solitary confinement, if only because he is the only prisoner in this condition.

His conditions are exactly the same as any other prisoner held under the same circumstances. 1 hour a day out, a certain number of showers, 3 meals a day, etc.

At the end of the day, the courts of the US have long since ruled on what is and what is not torture, and the rules regarding confinement at all levels. The story is a non-starter, created only by people who are looking for a way to get the weasel out of trouble.

You go to bat for Manning. Would you go to bat for the mass murders who live in solitary (like Charles Manson)? Does he deserve to get out because solitary is so bad?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

There are no claims of torture, except to say that solitary confinement is itself a torture, which is an argument that the courts in the US have rejected over and over again.

Finally, a good citizen to explain to us the err of our ways! Our great nation has also said that waterboarding is not torture, and let me tell you, sir, that I believe them. Even if most other countries, except China and North Korea-- maybe they're not so bad afterall?- says that it's torture, what do they know? Our Great Nation says that it's okay, and that's good enough for me, yes sir it is!

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that he cannot be locked up without parole until his trial.

I didn't hear anyone saying that he shouldn't be in jail awaiting his trial, but, hey, way to knock that strawman down, Citizen! Score one for the greatest nation God ever gave Man! HooRah!

I am saying he is billeted with all the others accused of spreading 250,000 official secrets and confidential documents. He is the only one.

QFT, my fellow Citizen! That's also why we don't let him have a pillow or sheets, because we don't have any sheets bought for people awaiting a trial for allegedly spreading 250,000 secret and confidential documents. I mean, really, who has a set of those lying around? It's also why we don't let him exercise in his cell, because then we might have to give him a towel or a mat or something, and we don't have any of those bought for for people awaiting a trial for allegedly spreading 250,000 secret and confidential documents, now do we? No sir, we do not! Books to read? No way! He'd probably just try to leak them to Wikileaks, am I right? *nudge nudge* Not only that, but even though we're supposed to treat him as if he is innocent until our great legal system determines whether or not he's guilty-- I say the doesn't *deserve* books. I've never needed to read them anyway! If I need to know something, Our Great Nation will tell me, won't they? Yes, sir, they will, at that!

The net result is he is in solitary confinement, if only because he is the only prisoner in this condition.

His conditions are exactly the same as any other prisoner held under the same circumstances.

That's korrect! He is alone because he's unique and he's treated this way just like all the others! Why didn't I see that before? Thank you, learned Citizen!

The story is a non-starter, created only by people who are looking for a way to get the weasel out of trouble.

That's right, we don't want that innocent-until-proven-guilty weasel to get out of trouble that he may or may not be in, amirite? I just don't understand all those mamby-pampy people who say, if he's found innocent, then we are punishing a US citizen with harsh (many say torturous) conditions. I can feel it in my gut that he's guilty! We should just kill him now so we don't have to order those bedsheets!

You go to bat for Manning. Would you go to bat for the mass murders who live in solitary (like Charles Manson)? Does he deserve to get out because solitary is so bad?

Correct-o-mundo, Citizen! This innocent-until-proven-guilty weasel is worse than a mass murderer, if you ask me! That's surely why he isn't even allowed books, like all those mass murderers. No books at all! Why, if it were up to me, he wouldn't even be allowed to *think* words. I know I don't, and I turned out just fine!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Remind me again of all the press and visitors that get to see Manson. If I remember correctly, he gets none of the above, and has been in administrative segregation since his incarceration.

As for Manning, he gets what is prescribed in the UCMJ. In both cases, the prisoners are held within the limits the the law, following both court rulings on the issues of confinement, as well as the limits imposed by UCMJ.

I suspect the whining is starting now because Julian Assange has figured out this is how he is going to spend the rest of his life. So it's better he starts a movement now, so that he can maybe live a more comfortable life being Bubba's girlfriend instead of being left alone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I suspect the whining is starting now because Julian Assange has figured out this is how he is going to spend the rest of his life. So it's better he starts a movement now, so that he can maybe live a more comfortable life being Bubba's girlfriend instead of being left alone."

Now that's an interesting comment. So what country will he be in when he's in prison, and what will be the charges he's convicted of?

As far as I'm aware, solitary confinement would be extremely unusual for a rapist, and unless he permanently relocates to the US it's unlikely any country would try to prosecute him for terrorism or treason. I honestly can't see any plausible way your prediction could possibly come true. Of course that's ignoring the fact that Manning is under military law while Assange is a civilian, and it's fairly unlikely even in the US Manning would have gotten the treatment he's getting now if he were in civilian courts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Julian Assange has already figured out that the Rape case is nothing compared to what he is likely to face in the US. If Manning implicates him in a way that can tie Assange directly to the actions taken to obtain the documents (such as saying "you get the documents, and I will make sure they get online"), then Assange will face prosecution in the US.

In a US prison, it is incredibly unlikely he would ever be allowed into generation population, because anyone with a family member or friend in the military would likely kill him first chance. It would be a trophy kill, no doubt. So it is likely that Assange would spend the rest of his life in Administrative Segregation, similar to Manson and others who cannot be allowed to mix with other inmates.

As for Manning, he would likely get the same treatment he is getting now, except perhaps he might be in segregation in a place like Riker's Island. Again, he would be someone targeted by anyone trying to make a reputation or angry about the events, and as such, he could never be left in general population at any facility.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"anyone with a family member or friend in the military would likely kill him first chance." really?!! He's been out and about most of the time since wikileaks started ... Since we're talking "anyone" "first chance " , the subset of people who know someone in th military (that's a lot of people) must be so inept as to be harmless

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"See? He isn't being tortured."

Look at my comment, please. I said "potentially". It's not statement of fact, just a presumption made of the available evidence. You made a positive, concrete statement made on nothing but your own assumption.

"Some prisoners in the US may spend up to 5 years incarcerated as their case wanders through the court system"

...and you don't see a problem with this?

"The net result is he is in solitary confinement, if only because he is the only prisoner in this condition."

I notice you don't address my comment about the blatant contradiction between this and your original statement.

"Would you go to bat for the mass murders who live in solitary (like Charles Manson)?"

IIRC, Manson was convicted in a fair trial and is serving the sentence given to him by a court of law. When did this happen to Manning?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Look at my comment, please. I said "potentially". It's not statement of fact, just a presumption made of the available evidence. You made a positive, concrete statement made on nothing but your own assumption

Either he is being tortured or he is not. The points you bring up all point to things long settled in the US system as "not torture". No, we aren't talking about Shrub Bush magically declaring waterboarding legal or anything like that, but things that have been ruled over many years by the highest courts in the land.

I notice you don't address my comment about the blatant contradiction between this and your original statement.

His status in solitary confinement is moot, because there is nobody else to put him with. If another prisoner comes in with similar charges, perhaps they will be placed together. Maybe not. We do not know. But the solitary confinement (as noted above) is as much for his own protection as anything else.

...and you don't see a problem with this?

I see a bigger problem rushing to court unprepared, without all of the information, without all of the interviews done, without cafefully crossing all the Ts and dotting every I. Nobody would want to make a purely technical mistake that allows this traitor to get off. The legal system is not internet fast, it is real world slow. In Manning's case, those delays can be even longer because there are issues about jurisdiction (military or civil), as well as obtaining the most information regarding the nature of the break in.

IIRC, Manson was convicted in a fair trial and is serving the sentence given to him by a court of law. When did this happen to Manning?

Well, let's see. Manson was arrested at the start of December, 1969, and was only found guilty in early 1971. So Manson was held for more than a year without conviction (and just over a year without a trial starting). That in a legal system that was way less burdened than our current system is, and without the implications of the military and court martial potential.

So perhaps we can look back in, I dunno, 5 years from now, and perhaps see how the parallels go.

Re: Re: Re:

You really, really should read the Gawande article linked above. I believe it might give you some pause in your support of solitary confinement - and yes, it covers its current legal status and use in the U.S., which in fact makes for a more compelling case against it when you know the history and details.

What does it matter? He is guilty, he will be convicted of treason and probably put to death for it.

It would be "the most anti-American thought I can think of to say that someone deserves punishment even when they have not been found guilty of a crime" in most cases. If there was a resonable doubt of guilt. In this case, there is no doubt.

Hell, just put him in with the general population. They'll "love" him in there.

Re:

Indeed. Which brings us to the only real question here: is it permissible to torture somebody as punishment? This is in contrast to the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the US in recent years which, defenders claim, are a means of extracting vital, life-saving information.

Re:

You do realize that "reasonable doubt" doesn't just mean "what some guy who barely knows any of the details happens to think", right?

I'm not saying I have that much doubt, but you are calling for a man's head without even giving him a fair and legal trial. I'm sorry, but that is very anti-American. (And anti-freedom in general - I'm Canadian, but equally repulsed)

"GREAT SCOTT! Diplomatic cables are being released that prove that we did things that everyone already suspected we did!
We've got to maintain our good image! Quick, find the people responsible for the leak and have them tortured!"

Re:

That is just it, the guys who are responsible for this leak are not being charged.

How is it that a private in a remote location can get access to this state dept information?
Who set up the system that gave him access? These are the folks who have compromised the military and diplomatic secrets of the united staes. These are the folks who are the experts in security and are responsible for keeping this information out of the “wrong hands”. These folks in the army and DISA also need to be on trial for making available state secrets to the enemy. If these folks had not been negligent in doing their job, I doubt anyone would have heard of Mr. Manning today.

Based on the facts that are now known, I believe Mr. Manning may be guilty of treason, and deserves to be tried. That said, based on the released material,I do not believe Mr. Assange is guilty of any crime in the United States. He is not a United States citizen; he did not dig out the documents from any American location. In short he owes America nothing. If the Americans can not safeguard our own secrets, why should he?

The thing that stuck out for me was that he's not allowed to exercise. Maybe the powers that be want him to appear overweight, and weak so his appearance is disassociated to the general military serviceman.

I don't know enough to make a determination but wouldn't an inability to exercise be against habeas corpus?

Re:

I brought up habeas corpus because of something I remembered from days past [edited]:

The reality is without habeas corpus, a lot of other rights lose their meaning. But if you look at the actual Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of that pesky Constitution, you’ll see just how many remain for your protection.

If you’re detained without trial, you lose your freedom of religion and speech, press, assembly, all the rest of that. So, you don’t need a number of liberties...

He's definitely not secure against searches and seizures, as it says here, with or without probable cause.

But mainly, it seems his trial won't be speedy. In fact, his trial will occur when the Government wants it.

So as you can see, without habeas corpus, at least one tenth of the Bill of Rights, I guess that’s the Bill of Right, now—remains virtually intact.

"Once again, it appears that the US State Department believes in different rules for itself than what it pushes on everyone else. Once again, I find that I am disappointed by my government not coming even close to the standards it purports to hold, and which it regularly argues other countries should follow as well."

I don't believe they think about it.
Those statements about torture in other places are propaganda mostly to get leverage for something or for the public benefit only.

It has always been this way is just that now people can hear about it with incredible speeds and can fact check those things more easily with a network of millions of individuals that live virtually everywhere.

civilians are help to a Different standard then our military... yes it's true.. Pvt. Manning violated the rules of the UCMJ (Uniform code of Military Justice) that he agreed to when he signed his enlistment papers.. a CONTRACT.. in the military an individual is considered GUILTY until proven innocent..
I served 8 yrs service in the USMC - one of those years I spent in the brig at Camp Lejeune brig for punching an officer ( a 2nd lt who fraking deserved it) in a small 6' X 12' cell for the 1st month before being released into a dorm with 64 other prisoners.. it's no cake walk, yes it sucks, but being mistreated, I highly doubt it. even the guards are held accountable for their actions and they must abide by the UCMJ.
I have zero sympathy for this little shit because he knew what he was doing was an illegal act punishable under articles of the ( yes here it is again) UCMJ!!!
Pvt. Manning most likely had at least a confidential security clearance and had to sign a NDA ( Non Disclosure Agreement). so boo f-in hoo for pvt. manning...

Re: Torture of Private Manning

On pain of hanging, lest you become part of the crime by silence, the Nuremburg Tribunal asserted that publication of the truth as to war crimes was the superior requirement.

Much of what Manning disclosed are proofs of war crimes of this government.

Hence, he is being tortured for revealing those crimes, for being a whistle blower.

His attorney, Coombs, himself military and apparently a blind adherent to the military code, is in essence helping destroy his client.

Somebody who is an attorney needs to walk into a Federal District Court in Quantico and filing a habeas motion as Mannings next best friend, demand he be produced to the court and the matter be sorted out as to Manning being held at all, insofar as he is a whistle blower, and the nature of the conditions under which he is held.

I am ...

Too bad the State Dept. is embarrassed - we (at least those of us who would give our lives in defending the Constitution) have a fundamental right to see the corruption in our own government.

One of the tenets of MY Constitution is that ANYONE enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Even if Manning released the cables (which still isn't clear that he did), until all arguments are heard and evidence presented, he is still a human being.

Don't believe the major media - if you don't think they bury truths and distort facts, you my friends, are naïve.

Inhuman behavior again: the usual suspects

The security freaks and their contractors are only doing this until they can get a confession from manning that he was raped by Assange and for whatever incidental pleasure they can derive. See Mercenaries aka Private Military Contractors at http://www.saintpeterii.com/blog/?p=417
See President Palin: The Whys and Why Nots. Find pout the truth about Palin water boarding a Moose at http://www.saintpeterii.com/blog/?p=493

Military law

One thing I noticed was missing from this discussion was that Manning is under military law, not civil law. Maybe some of the lawyers on here can inform us as to things like habeus corpus etc. regarding Manning's civil rights under these circumstances.

One thing I do agree with and that is that he shouldn't be tortured. I also agree with the statement that solitary is torment. I had my car breakdown and was stranded at home in the middle of nowhere for three months. I had telephone, TV, and internet and I still nearly went freaking insane. If you haven't been there don't assume you know what it's like.

I am wondering if he leaked this info to someone other than wikileaks. Such as a foreign government. If they've got some evidence we don't know of that would indicate he sold the info to, say, Iran or North Korea, it would explain their behavior. (Please note I said EXPLAIN, not justify)

This could be spite, or maybe we don't have all the info yet.Maybe we never will. (Unfortunately)

Re: Why's Obama so silent?

"I'd like to know why Obama is condoning torture under his administration? It's in stark contrast with everything that he promised before the election."

Because Obama says one thing and then does the opposite. When he said he was against illegal wiretapping but then voted to give those involved amnesty was when I realized that he was just another liar and decided not to vote for him.

Can't imagine why anyone..

would be surprised. The U.S. government wants one rule for all other countries and one rule for themselves. Internet Censorship is bad when Iran or China or North Korea do it, but when we do it it is far different. And no such thing as illegal wiretapping here right?

Torture? Why would anyone be surprised - the government has long believed that torture is a necessary part of getting information out of people. They say it is wrong for other countries, but they go ahead torture whoever they think has information that they need to find out. Constitutional protections mean nothing when it comes to "National Security". It's only surprising that they don't put it on TV for a reality show.

We fought for the right to give our freedom's away.

In America you don't even have to be accused of crime to go to prison. A judge can find you in Contempt of Court and off you go.

Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the presiding and can be dealt with summarily. In other words, the judge informs you of the charge, and then imposes the sanction immediately. And, there is nothing you can do to stop it.